Jump to content
IGNORED

The Coronavirus and its impact on sport/Fans Return (Merged)


Loderingo

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Ok, so Government approach is to allow spirts to continue.

Very likely that EFL / PL going to defy government by taking their own stance.

What does this tell the government? Their behavioural science is mis-guided?  

I have a feeling that if the EFL /PL take this action today , I feel the government will take a similar approach in a very short period of time 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

IMO we also can’t panic and shut everything down as the long term impacts to the economy will impact many more of the population for years to come, Italy could be screwed financially by shutting down to soon, then realising they have to keep shut for even longer, which could then result in even more deaths.  
 

I thought the approach we are taking seemed sensible and measured and based on actual statistics and studies, and it was good to see this kind of response which, even if you don’t agree with it, no one can deny it’s not based on information

In fairness, it does seem a sensible approach, but things are changing rapidly.  If EFL / PL defy government stance, the goalposts (no pun) have moved and government need to recalibrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

IMO we also can’t panic and shut everything down as the long term impacts to the economy will impact many more of the population for years to come, Italy could be screwed financially by shutting down to soon, then realising they have to keep shut for even longer, which could then result in even more deaths.  
 

I thought the approach we are taking seemed sensible and measured and based on actual statistics and studies, and it was good to see this kind of response which, even if you don’t agree with it, no one can deny it’s not based on information

This, it seems to me is very much a significant factor in the UK Gov's approach to this.

I did some very simple/basic calculations based on Googling a few things.

Let's say that there are 28 mill households and that £300 per week for each household is enough to keep them going over a shutdown period.

Let's also say that a 10 week shut down should see us through the worst of this.

That would cost the Gov £84 billion

Now consider that they bailed out the banks in 2008 to the tune of £500 billion.

All very simplistic, but makes you think how much our health is worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that the UK approach is somewhat maverick - and potentially - quite clever.

Of course, this could massively backfire.

I get the impression (and I haven't read up massively on this, limiting my knowledge to news broadcasts), that the government want us to get ill. But in a controlled way, so that by the beginning of summer when this pandemic is expected to reach its peak, a lot of people will already have some form of natural immunity to the worst of it and the NHS are in a better position to cope.

If we go full shut down now, the panic and fear will be diluted by the time things are worse and/or the damage to the economy will be far worse.

Not saying that a price has been put on our heads in terms of the economic outcome to the country, but it wouldn't surprise me.

And with so many companies and organisations putting their own measures in place, a controlled slow down of spreading a virus we can't stop could be the best approach, especially if those most at risk take more precautions.

Granted, I have next to no faith in Boris, but there is something reassuring about the words from Chris Whitty.

 

  • Like 10
  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Seems to me that the UK approach is somewhat maverick - and potentially - quite clever.

Of course, this could massively backfire.

I get the impression (and I haven't read up massively on this, limiting my knowledge to news broadcasts), that the government want us to get ill. But in a controlled way, so that by the beginning of summer when this pandemic is expected to reach its peak, a lot of people will already have some form of natural immunity to the worst of it and the NHS are in a better position to cope.

If we go full shut down now, the panic and fear will be diluted by the time things are worse and/or the damage to the economy will be far worse.

Not saying that a price has been put on our heads in terms of the economic outcome to the country, but it wouldn't surprise me.

And with so many companies and organisations putting their own measures in place, a controlled slow down of spreading a virus we can't stop could be the best approach, especially if those most at risk take more precautions.

Granted, I have next to no faith in Boris, but there is something reassuring about the words from Chris Whitty.

 

Just watching the Joe Rogan Experience and his chat with Michael Osterholm (an American public-health scientist and a biosecurity and infectious-disease expert) was interesting, talking about building immunity etc and the shutting of schools etc…

How it Co-Vid 19 differs from Spanish Flu etc…

Edited by exAtyeoMax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Seems to me that the UK approach is somewhat maverick - and potentially - quite clever.

Of course, this could massively backfire.

I get the impression (and I haven't read up massively on this, limiting my knowledge to news broadcasts), that the government want us to get ill. But in a controlled way, so that by the beginning of summer when this pandemic is expected to reach its peak, a lot of people will already have some form of natural immunity to the worst of it and the NHS are in a better position to cope.

If we go full shut down now, the panic and fear will be diluted by the time things are worse and/or the damage to the economy will be far worse.

Not saying that a price has been put on our heads in terms of the economic outcome to the country, but it wouldn't surprise me.

And with so many companies and organisations putting their own measures in place, a controlled slow down of spreading a virus we can't stop could be the best approach, especially if those most at risk take more precautions.

Granted, I have next to no faith in Boris, but there is something reassuring about the words from Chris Whitty.

 

100% agree, most of us will get this thing, so once you accept that, you then want to manage that so you can deal with it.  Yes there is an argument they could have done things sooner to stop the spread, but the cat was out the bag before we even knew about it, they said yesterday although only 500 odd confirmed cases currently, in reality it’s 10,000 already, which means the spread can not be stopped by token lock downs

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

 

Ah, the Joe Rogan Podcast; that well respected source of impartial news and comment!

Seriously, like I said, I'm no apologist for China, and wouldn't be surprised if a lot of what the guy says is true. But that's all about food hygiene and animal welfare standards - not the principle of it being more acceptable to eat one animal over another. And on the subject of animal welfare standards, I'm not taking any lectures from America on that.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Ah, the Joe Rogan Podcast; that well respected source of impartial news and comment!

Seriously, like I said, I'm no apologist for China, and wouldn't be surprised if a lot of what the guy says is true. But that's all about food hygiene and animal welfare standards - not the principle of it being more acceptable to eat one animal over another. And on the subject of animal welfare standards, I'm not taking any lectures from America on that.

This guy is an American public-health scientist and a biosecurity and infectious-disease expert. In the video he explains how coronaviruses are transmitted from specific animals to humans…if they weren't eating them they wouldn't be stacked up in boxes in a wet market and slaughtered on the spot for your delicacy! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

100% agree, most of us will get this thing, so once you accept that, you then want to manage that so you can deal with it.  Yes there is an argument they could have done things sooner to stop the spread, but the cat was out the bag before we even knew about it, they said yesterday although only 500 odd confirmed cases currently, in reality it’s 10,000 already, which means the spread can not be stopped by token lock downs

Maybe the government deciding to not cancel football is down to the fact the majority of fans probably fall in to the category of 'most likely to fight off the virus' and those with underlying health concerns will elect to stay away.

>>The average age of match-going football supporters has increased dramatically over the last 50 years; that is undeniable. In his magnificent state-of-the-nation book And The Sun Shines Now, Adrian Tempany reports that the age of an average fan in the Stretford End at Old Trafford rose from 17 in 1968 to 40 in 2008. At St James’ Park, the average age rose from 35 to 45 in a decade. Same old faces; no new faces.<<

So whilst the PL/EFL might decide to play it safe, if there are already 10,000 people with symptoms some more 'fit and healthy' people getting it could make the workforce stronger come summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Ok, so Government approach is to allow spirts to continue.

Very likely that EFL / PL going to defy government by taking their own stance.

What does this tell the government? Their behavioural science is mis-guided?  

The way I'd read it is that if the EFL decide to call off then it will be a decision based on players, not on crowds and large gatherings.

If they come out and say its about large gatherings then they are contradicting the government, the day after the government's announcement. As you say, disputing the government's advice. Politically, not a great thing to do. 

What they're more likely to do is base the cancellation on the risk to players, and the fact that club squads are starting to be affected by the virus. 

Mind you, if they do adopt the latter stance, then they won't be playing games behind closed doors.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

This guy is an American public-health scientist and a biosecurity and infectious-disease expert. In the video he explains how coronaviruses are transmitted from specific animals to humans…if they weren't eating them they wouldn't be stacked up in boxes in a wet market and slaughtered on the spot for your delicacy! 

Yep, I know, I watched it.

My comment about the source was intended to be, in part at least, tongue in cheek, so sorry if that didn't come across. The fact is you can find a video of some expert claiming just about anything you want to on the internet - but I accept that this particular podcast isn't one of the more nutty ones, and the guy speaking has credentials.

But the real point I'm making is that he's talking about the way in which the animals are transported, kept, slaughtered etc. Animal welfare. Food hygiene. Your original post - which is what I was responding to - didn't say anything about that - it was simply critical of the Chinese for eating bats and rats. I'm just questioning what's wrong with that - if they are properly treated. Pigs and chickens would transmit horrible viruses to humans if they weren't subject to the food hygiene and animal welfare standards we have in place (currently!).

So, in summary, I agree that the hygiene and welfare standards in China are poor (but they're not great in the US either). What I don't agree with is lecturing, or getting on our high horses, about which animals the Chinese eat, or about a record of exploitation of African or Indian countries.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Yep, I know, I watched it.

My comment about the source was intended to be, in part at least, tongue in cheek, so sorry if that didn't come across. The fact is you can find a video of some expert claiming just about anything you want to on the internet - but I accept that this particular podcast isn't one of the more nutty ones, and the guy speaking has credentials.

But the real point I'm making is that he's talking about the way in which the animals are transported, kept, slaughtered etc. Animal welfare. Food hygiene. Your original post - which is what I was responding to - didn't say anything about that - it was simply critical of the Chinese for eating bats and rats. I'm just questioning what's wrong with that - if they are properly treated. Pigs and chickens would transmit horrible viruses to humans if they weren't subject to the food hygiene and animal welfare standards we have in place (currently!).

So, in summary, I agree that the hygiene and welfare standards in China are poor (but they're not great in the US either). What I don't agree with is lecturing, or getting on our high horses, about which animals the Chinese eat, or about a record of exploitation of African or Indian countries.

I wasn't critical of Chinese eating bats and rats, merely highlighting what happens when they do. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SX227 said:

NSW Health released details on the 13 latest cases. They are:

newcases1203.jpg

 

Still think it's an elderly persons problem this coronavirus? Young people are just as likely to get it and die, lesser numbers sure, but the blaise attitude from some is astonishing.

No one has said young people can't catch it. In fact most people's arguements are that young people will catch it but show few / mild symptoms and then pass it on without realising they had it.

Your statement that young people are just as likely to die seems to be scientifically and statistically incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Seems to me that the UK approach is somewhat maverick - and potentially - quite clever.

Of course, this could massively backfire.

I get the impression (and I haven't read up massively on this, limiting my knowledge to news broadcasts), that the government want us to get ill. But in a controlled way, so that by the beginning of summer when this pandemic is expected to reach its peak, a lot of people will already have some form of natural immunity to the worst of it and the NHS are in a better position to cope.

If we go full shut down now, the panic and fear will be diluted by the time things are worse and/or the damage to the economy will be far worse.

Not saying that a price has been put on our heads in terms of the economic outcome to the country, but it wouldn't surprise me.

And with so many companies and organisations putting their own measures in place, a controlled slow down of spreading a virus we can't stop could be the best approach, especially if those most at risk take more precautions.

Granted, I have next to no faith in Boris, but there is something reassuring about the words from Chris Whitty.

 

Pretty much how I see it. As you say, it could backfire massively but I do understand the logic.

One other aspect I wonder about - given how much the approach is tied to behavioural economics - is whether sports events closing on their own accord and people starting to avoid social events voluntarily is actually in keeping with the plan. It wouldn't shock me all that much if some of the slowness to act is based on a belief that the public (and large organisations such as the Premier League and the EFL) will accept and process these measures better if they decide on a need for them themselves rather than having to do it because the government told them to. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...